No thanks...No interest in a Bledsoe centerpiece trade for kg...ridiculous

Maybe for pierce

Who do you think Boston can get for KG, given his age, level of production, salary cap limitations and no-trade clause?

Mike

If you can't get anything, then maybe it's ok not to trade him, you know.

Bledsoe and Jordan are something. They're more than just something. Right now, Jordan is better than any big on the Celtics other than KG. Even when healthy, I don't think you could say Sully was better than Jordan. Right now, Bledsoe is better than any PG on the Celtics other than Rondo and you could make an argument he'd be a better 2 guard than anyone currently on Boston's roster.

If you'd rather KG just retire as a Celtic, that's not an indefensible position. I'd rather that than trade him for either Bledsoe-Butler or Bledsoe-Odom. But if you recognize that trading KG is probably in the best long-term interests of the team and that the possible trades you could make are severely limited, Bledsoe-Jordan would not only be a pretty good swap, it very likely is the best possible trade to be made.

Mike

Yes Jordan would be the best big after KG but considering the quality of the Celtics bigs after KG, that doesn't say much. Jordan's a quality big but trading KG means a full rebuild right now, which means trading Pierce and Terry too and in that scenario, Jordan being the best big and making a hair less than Rondo doesn't seem all that appealing.

It's too late in the season to just go blow a team up. For missing the playoffs and not getting a top lottery pick (nevermind this draft is pretty weak), the trade returns have to super attractive and Bledsoe and Jordan just aren't. You don't trade someone like KG just to get anything you can for him. Further, this team is really fun to watch now that the ball isn't being dominated in one guy's hands. It's also still really talented.

No thanks...No interest in a Bledsoe centerpiece trade for kg...ridiculous

Maybe for pierce

Who do you think Boston can get for KG, given his age, level of production, salary cap limitations and no-trade clause?

Mike

Nothing worthy of trading him for...rather kg be here until he retires then trade him for mediocre talent...I feel it much more about him then pierce...I know people get caught up in wanting pierce to be a career long Celtic...that means nothing to me..he was on the worst Celtic teams ever until kg turned around the franchise with Garnett leading the ball club we can make noise..without him we're back to the 20 year drought..a Bledsoe doesn't change the future positively in any way so I'll take my chances enjoying watching kg

Bledsoe and Jordan are something. They're more than just something. Right now, Jordan is better than any big on the Celtics other than KG. Even when healthy, I don't think you could say Sully was better than Jordan. Right now, Bledsoe is better than any PG on the Celtics other than Rondo and you could make an argument he'd be a better 2 guard than anyone currently on Boston's roster.

Jordan is also paid more than any big on the Celtics other than KG. As a matter of fact, he's owed approximately as much as KG, and for as many years.

That Bledsoe is better than a crop that includes three shooting guards and Avery Bradley, that's more or less a foregone conclusion. He may or may not pan out, but he's been pretty dreadful in a small sample of games as a starter this season.

If you'd rather KG just retire as a Celtic, that's not an indefensible position. I'd rather that than trade him for either Bledsoe-Butler or Bledsoe-Odom. But if you recognize that trading KG is probably in the best long-term interests of the team and that the possible trades you could make are severely limited, Bledsoe-Jordan would not only be a pretty good swap, it very likely is the best possible trade to be made.

The case in point is, three years from now you still have pretty much nothing (unless of course you find Bledsoe and Jordan to be a long-term solution, which I don't). The question is, would you like three years of Jordan or three years of Garnett. And I think it's not much of a question.

Pls do not trade for Bledsoe. I just saw him up close last night - poor decision making and I was surprised at how slow he is. More importantly, he is 6'1" on a good day and probably wearing inserts. Trade Rondo.

Would rather have the cap room when Garnett retires than a PG prospect and contract ballast.

The only trades I am interested in are ones that move mid-length contracts (Bass, Terry, Green, Lee) for expirings and chips.

Start the rebuild during/just before the 2014/15 season.

That's not how trades usually work. Normally, you trade a contract you don't want and useful assets such as picks or young players for an expiring contract.

It would make more sense to hang on to Bass and Terry until the 2014 off-season, when they become expiring contracts with a year left on their deals.

Logged

"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Lucky17- Thanks for pointing out the trade kicker. That extra 2 million is actually significant

kozlodoev- the "50 cents on the dollar" line has me interested. What is 100 cents for Garnett (keeping age and contract in mind). There are some young rebuilding teams like the Bobcats or the Cavs for whom he is not worth a 1st round draft pick. To a contender, though, he is obviously valuable. So how much should KG be worth, hypothetically, to the clippers, lakers, nuggets, thunder, knicks, spurs, jazz, griz, heat, bulls, <celtics?>, etc?

Lucky17- Thanks for pointing out the trade kicker. That extra 2 million is actually significant

kozlodoev- the "50 cents on the dollar" line has me interested. What is 100 cents for Garnett (keeping age and contract in mind). There are some young rebuilding teams like the Bobcats or the Cavs for whom he is not worth a 1st round draft pick. To a contender, though, he is obviously valuable. So how much should KG be worth, hypothetically, to the clippers, lakers, nuggets, thunder, knicks, spurs, jazz, griz, heat, bulls, <celtics?>, etc?

The problem is how much is he worth to us -- his "market price" may be determined by what other teams are willing to pay us, but his value to the Celtics isn't. And there is no reason to trade him unless the former is reasonably close to the latter.

That's why I'm saying it's ok not to trade him. The problem is no-one is going to give you a reasonably good big man for Garnett, and I'm not interested in bringing in another guard. I feel like we should be exploring trades for Rondo instead.